Riding and Reminiscing
While on an evening bike ride with my oldest son, we reminisced about one of the first government meetings we attended together -- an annexation hearing before our county commissioners. Looking back, we agreed that the meeting turned out to be an invaluable opportunity to witness government in action.
At the hearing, the attorney for the petitioner -- a single property owner seeking to be annexed by the local city -- presented first. The attorney stood at the podium holding a small folder. He began, "We present the completed application and forms as required by law. We believe that we have met all legal requirements. We therefore ask that you grant the petition as filed." He sat down.
Next, a long line formed to speak against the annexation. For the next hour, as the commissioners quietly watched, my son and I listened to folks demand a claim to the petitioner's property. Not one speaker questioned the legality of the petition. We left.
Days later, I read in the paper that the hearings were scheduled to continue for two weeks. In the end, the petition -- which everyone agreed was legal -- was denied.
This singular experience showed us that government is not based on laws, it is based on arbitrary power. And that ownership of property is a dead concept in these times of positive rights.
Of course, the opportunity to witness government in action is always a great way to understand our current state. But I must warn you that afterwards you will see your neighbors in a new light.
Comments (5)
I don't get it. I would think being annexed by the local city and incorporated into the local city's tax base would be more a violation of property rights.
Published: July 18, 2008 1:22 AM
David C:
In this instance, the property owner (a farmer) wanted to be annexed so that his property (over 100 acres) would be worth more to developers. The city has higher density allowances -- more homes could be built per acre -- than the township. In addition, the city provided more services (water, sewer, etc.) than the township. His neighbors in the township wanted his property to remain farm land.
Published: July 18, 2008 2:45 AM
Then his neighbors should have bought his property. Instead they resort to stealing it. At that point since they want it to remain a farm then the farmer should promptly get into the pig business. LOTS of pigs. Let the neighbors enjoy the "fresh country air".
************
...His neighbors in the township wanted his property to remain farm land.
************
Published: July 18, 2008 8:27 AM
You are to be commended. Very few parents make an effort to ensure that their children understand how the government operates. As a result, their children go out into the world completely unaware of situations such as the one described in your post.
Published: July 19, 2008 12:14 AM
I'd remind everyone that, in the Kelo "eminent domain" case, the rationale for the taking of the property was to make it available to development of a sort that would, presumably, pay higher taxes and (also presumably) lower them for current payers.
The neighbors again. People can be disappointing.
Published: July 19, 2008 7:26 AM